Last night, William Redpat, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, responded to the President's State of the Union Address. He does a good job of summarizing why I was gritting my teeth. Of course, the Samuel Adams quote helped, too:

Tonight's State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government's intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy. It is unfortunate to see that after seven years of increasing the size of government and increasing the government's presence in the day to day lives of all Americans, the President refuses to limit the scope of the federal government, a once championed virtue of the President's party. The President's last State of the Union address encapsulated his legacy of an abandonment of the principles of limited government and individual freedom.

While the Libertarian Party applauds the President on taking a stand against wasteful government spending--though his administration has been a large contributor to this problem--and opening up more foreign markets to trade, we offer the following solutions to issues the President brought up in his address:

Economics: The President's economic stimulus plan is based on a flawed and outdated economic premise. The best solution to an economic slowdown is increasing the ability for businesses to grow and reinvest in the economy. Instead of increasing the federal deficit by $150 billion dollars, the federal government should focus its energy on eliminating taxes that restrain economic growth. Eliminating taxes such as the death tax and capital gains taxes, and lowering income tax rates on private citizens, will free up vital capital that can be reinvested into the economy. Additionally, the federal government should remove all trade barriers that prevent free trade with other nations. This is a more sound economic policy that presents real solutions instead of the window-dressing that is the President's stimulus package.

Education: The President's 'No Child Left Behind Act' has failed from the very beginning, and its reauthorization would be a travesty to the American education system. Instead of unfunded, federal mandates with the intent of fixing our failing public schools, alternatives involving the private sector should be explored. Increased local control over public schools and the increased use of private alternatives will increase the quality of education for all American children. We call for abolishing the Department of Education and removing the federal government from educating our children.

Health care: Far too long have our politicians tried to find a government fix for the health care problem we have in America. Government interference in the health care system is the root of the problems we face. Only in eliminating government subsidies of health care will we find relief from increasing costs. The Libertarian Party calls for the elimination of all government entitlement programs related to health care.

Foreign Policy: America will spend more than $1 trillion dollars in foreign wars started during the Bush administration. Because of such, the economy is in jeopardy and America's reputation abroad has suffered traumatic blows. On top of this, Americans have seen their civil liberties violated time after time. The Libertarian Party calls for a withdrawal from Iraq following the proper lines of withdrawal, executed by our commanders on the ground. We also call for an abandonment of the reckless policy of pre-emptive war, and a restoration of civil liberties lost under such laws as the Patriot Act and the amendments to FISA. The Libertarian Party reminds our leaders in power of the great words of Samuel Adams:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

In this perilous time, when our freedom is attacked from both inside our borders by corrupt politicians and from outside by foreign aggressors, we call for prudence, wisdom and above all, an adherence to the United States Constitution, which reigns sovereign over all individuals of American society.

And when a great multitude had gathered, and they had come to Him from every city, He spoke by a parable: "A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold." When He had said these things He cried, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

Then His disciples asked Him, saying, "What does this parable mean?"

And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that

"Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience."

A great multitude had gathered from every city, they ran to hear Him. Yet he calls them the wayside, the rocks and the thorns. Here was a crowd that wanted to hear Him, yet only a few could be called good ground. Do you wonder why things are the way they are, if no one is even running to hear Him?

Not every doctrine is easy to be understood. It is the right and privilege of the disciples of Jesus to know and understand these doctrines. Too many "christians" today want to complain at the difficulty of a doctrine or even of doctrine in general. Like Esau, they forsake their own birthright.

Get off the wayside. Get rid of your rocks and thorns. Stop choking yourself and prayerfully study the teachings of Christ that you might be good ground and blessed in your discipleship.

Okay, I know I've posted a LOT today and a lot this week. But this may be the most important thing I've posted. Do you understand the philosophy of liberty? Can you teach it to your children? Can you teach it to others?

This is one of the best presentations of the philosophy of Liberty I have seen. I highly recommend you follow this link, watch the presentation and pass it along to everyone that you can.

From "Voter Apathy Hurts our Children's Prospect of Liberty" by Dr. Patrick Johnston, January 26, 2008. NewsWithViews.com

The persecution of religious minorities and the forced abortion of unlicensed children have not always been legal in China. Same-sex marriage has not always been legal in the Netherlands. Immorality like this becomes legal when citizens grow apathetic to the leaders they elect and tolerate. Did you know that in Nazi Germany, 90% of German Lutheran bishops endorsed Hitler? Hitler was, to borrow a contemporary phrase, "the lesser of two evils" compared to the threat of Communism. Nazi tyranny and genocide came into existence not as a result of overthrowing the democratic process, but as a result of it. Not in spite of the voting block of Christians, but as a consequence of it. Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. We must not be so full of pride to think that we are more righteous than they and less deserving of judgment. More Americans died by abortion with a Republican president and with a Republican congressional majority from 2000 to 2006 than all the Jews that were killed in the Nazi Holocaust.

Proverbs 29, verse 2 says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." You and I may never personally mourn as a result of the leaders who exploit our apathy to come into power, but our grandchildren may. With God's help, we can turn the tide and return to the law of nature and nature's God in the way that we govern ourselves. With God's help, we can bring just and upright leaders into positions of public service. We must be worthy of just leaders. We must be diligent to remain free. We must get involved, we must investigate, we must inform others, and we must vote. For the sake of your children and grandchildren, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of those who died to make us free, please vote...

Its hard to find anything on the Louisiana Caucus.

Here's an article from ABC

And here's the link to the LAGOP.

CNN has reported that Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race.

Former Fred Thomspon supporters are certainly welcome to cast their votes for Ron Paul now. John Derbyshire of the National Review wrote a piece last Tuesday on why he would choose Ron Paul over Fred Thompson.

The American Spectator has announced that Mike Huckabee's campaign is broke.

Here is a great article from the National Review.

I have very little appetite to watch most TV "news" programs. But there is one journalist I have always enjoyed and eagerly anticipated his reporting: John Stossel. So I was thrilled to find this transcript online. John Stossel interviews Ron Paul.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a disconnect between the information on this screen?

Andrew Malcolm wrote this in the LA Times:

Well, he's hanging in there. Not only that, but Rep. Ron Paul thumped two reputed Republican heavyweights in the Michigan primary -- former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Who'd have predicted that a couple of months ago?

Giuliani, you may recall if you can remember anything as distant as last summer, was the longtime GOP national front-runner in polls. He ran strongly against everybody in his party, even former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won one last night, taking his home state from Sen. John McCain, who won there in 2000. Everybody wondered if anyone had a chance against the hero of 9/11, who defied standard Republican theocracy with his liberal social views.

But guess what? Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texas congressman and ob-gyn who delivers babies and a strict view of the Constitution, beat Giuliani in Michigan. And beat him good. Not only that ...

he doubled Giuliani's totals of 24,000 votes, or 2.8%, getting more than 52,000 votes, or 6.3%, of the total Republican ballots.

Paul even beat Thompson this time, the real consistent conservative who was supposed to be the next Ronald Reagan until he actually announced his campaign in September. Thompson got about 31,000 votes, or 3.7%, which is more than Rudy but still less than the nobody congressman with the libertarian views whom few people but his passionate partisans took seriously months ago. He's often called Dr. No for his consistent congressional votes against spending.

Paul was so written off that Fox News banned him from its recent debate in New Hampshire. Oops, now the Paulunteers are organizing a boycott of Fox sponsors in return for the snub, a move that Dennis Kucinich's fans are now calling for against MSNBC for barring him from Tuesday's Democratic debate in Las Vegas.

True, Romney killed all his Republican competitors in Michigan, as he had to, with more than 326,000 votes, nearly 39%, with McCain trailing at 29.7%, or 248,000. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee garnered less than half of Romney's votes, 135,000, or 16%.

And it's also true that Thompson and Giuliani didn't really campaign seriously in Michigan. Or New Hampshire. Or Iowa except for a last-minute Thompson bus tour. Obviously, both Giuliani and Thompson are intentionally laying back, trying to make the rest of the Republican field overconfident. No doubt.

Paul hasn't won anything yet, either, except the continued devotion of his followers and growing national attention, including two national TV appearances on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" plus a full hour on "Meet the Press." On Tuesday, Richard Viguerie, the noted conservative author, announced he's launching a website to support Paul. Viguerie called Paul "truly a principled conservative in the grand tradition of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan."

Paul just keeps picking up his 6% to 10% each time there's a vote. But Paul also beat Giuliani in Iowa. And he came pretty close to Giuliani in New Hampshire and did, in fact, beat Thompson there. And now in Michigan, Paul beat them both rather handily. He does it by going against virtually all the views of his GOP colleagues, including opposing the Iraq war.

Fueled by the generous donations of Paul believers, the congressman was probably the most successful GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter, acquiring nearly $20 million then and, according to his website, more than $834,000 more so far this month. He's already launched an eight-state ad blitz and has been campaigning in recent days in South Carolina, where he has three offices and will return later this week, and across Nevada. He got skunked in Wyoming, where Romney won, but imagine if Paul scored big one day in the wild West, where many people believe government got too big about 100 years ago.

Paul's website and new campaign blog claim to have quietly organized more than 7,800 precinct captains around the country. Meantime, Giuliani's top staff is going unpaid this month to save dwindling funds. Is there a pattern here?

So, while the "front-running" Republicans each win one state and no one builds up a head of steam, Paul just keeps hanging around, like a bad cold. Some of the other Republican candidates should be careful, lest they get the sniffles one of these days.

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
January 15, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

If evangelical Christians are hesitant to support Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination for President, two reasons are usually proffered: he does not support Israel, and he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Unfortunately, many (if not most) of today's evangelical Christians have bought into the whole neocon warmongering mentality. Somewhere along the way, evangelicals have forgotten the historic Christian understanding of "just war," not to mention our Savior's promise of divine blessing upon peacemakers. They have allowed President George W. Bush and his fellow warmongers to hijack the legitimate use of defensive war and turn it into a commitment to aggressive and preemptive war.

If the United States continues on its current path of aggressive, preemptive war, incessant nation-building, empire-building, and globalism, our country will collapse. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that no super-power can long survive global warfare. The economic, moral, and spiritual strain on the nation would be more than it could long endure. In other words, Bush's war doctrine has put America on a crash course with disaster, and evangelicals are downright foolish to go along with it.

Ron Paul is anything but a pacifist. He is a U.S. Air Force veteran, for goodness' sake. He believes in Ronald Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" philosophy. He believes in a strong military. He believes in defending the United States. That is not in question.

Obviously, however, Ron Paul rejects nation-building, empire-building, preemptive war, and globalism. By the way, this is something the Republican Party also used to reject before George W. Bush came along. And please understand, this is something that the vast majority--and I mean vast majority--of the American people also reject. If the GOP nominates a pro-Iraq war, pro-attack Iran, pro-preemptive invasion, pro-aggressive war candidate, they can kiss the November elections goodbye. The American people (except for the most fanatically loyal Bush supporters) are sick to death of American soldiers and Marines dying for Mideast oil, million-dollar Halliburton contracts, and "surrender-your-liberties-because-we-are-at-war" dribble. However, it is evangelical Christians' misunderstanding of Ron Paul's position on Israel that seems to be the most problematic.

To be sure, not all believers agree on the subject of Israel. Christians are divided between pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and even amillennialism. For the most part, pre-millennialists (such as me) believe that God will yet fulfill the Davidic Covenant with the nation of Israel. Post-millennialists, on the other hand, believe that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is the complete fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham and David.

Regardless of one's particular view of Eschatology, believers should be united in their support for protecting the sovereignty and independence of these United States. If this were really true, the vast majority of believers would enthusiastically support the candidacy of Ron Paul, as there is no one in Washington, D.C., who more faithfully defends the integrity of America's sovereignty and independence. The problem is, some Christians seem to give more loyalty and support to the government of Israel than they do their own country's independence and freedom.

In this regard, it is incredible to me how evangelical pastors and leaders can continue to associate with--and support--radical Israel apologists such as John Hagee. His ranting about Jewish people having a special covenant with God and needing not to come to the Father through Christ--and even that Jesus never claimed to be Christ--is nothing short of blatant apostasy.

Whether one believes in a future Davidic Kingdom or not is immaterial to the preservation of America's freedom and independence. If God intends a future place and purpose for Israel, He is certainly capable of fulfilling that place and purpose. He will not need your help, my help, or Ron Paul's help. I know that is shocking to the pride and arrogance of many evangelicals, but it is true nonetheless.

Does that mean that an American President should deliberately inflict harm upon the State of Israel? As long as they do not inflict harm upon us, no. No more than he should deliberately inflict harm upon any nation that does not inflict harm upon us. A free and independent nation--not to mention a nation whose roots are grounded in Christian philosophy--should seek only that which promotes peace and prosperity. Of all people, Christians should understand this. Ron Paul does understand this.

Accordingly, Ron Paul rightly wants to return America's foreign policy to the established and historic principles of its founding documents and sentiments. That means free and fair trade with all and entangling alliances with none. Not even Israel.

My dear Christian brethren, let's get real: America's policies toward Israel have not been a blessing to her. They have been a curse. George W. Bush and most other Presidents during the last 40 years have treated Israel like the proverbial red-headed step-child.

For example, America continues to furnish Israel's enemies with three times more aid and assistance than it does Israel. Three times. Is that being a blessing to Israel? America gives unflinching and magnanimous support to militant Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia. There is no nation in the Middle East that has harbored, trained, supplied, and supported more terrorists than Saudi Arabia. Is that being a blessing to Israel? In addition, every time an American President wants to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, he insists that Israel give up land for peace. President Bush is doing that very thing anew and afresh at this very moment. Is that being a blessing to Israel?

Let me assure the reader (if he or she needs assurance) that Israel knows how to defend itself. In fact, Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons. Israel has enough weaponry and nuclear capability to take out any threat to its sovereignty that any Arab nation--or group of Arab nations--could mount against it.

Herein lies another problem: it is a heavy-handed, dictatorial, do-as-I-say foreign policy from Washington, D.C., that prevents Israel from defending itself. Before Tel Aviv can do anything, it must come hat-in-hand to Washington for permission.

If Iraq was a legitimate threat, Israel could have taken out Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, and his entire army with little difficulty. The same is true right now with Iran. If Iran is a legitimate threat, Israel could launch whatever attack is necessary to defend itself. It should not need Washington's permission. Israel is a sovereign nation. It should have the right to defend itself as it deems necessary. Frankly, it is none of Washington's business. The truth is, Israel's perennial precariousness is a direct result of Washington's constant interference.

Ron Paul would put an end to Washington's deleterious and insatiable appetite for nation-building and entangling alliances. The result would be a stronger Israel and a more stable Middle East. Not to mention the lack of resentment and hatred that results from the worldwide perception that America is an arrogant and bullying country.

Furthermore, Christians need to understand that Jewish interests are not always harmonious with the interests of Christianity or the interests of the United States. Israel certainly did not act in a friendly fashion when it attacked the Navy intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, in 1967. That attack was the second deadliest against a U.S. vessel since the end of World War II. The attack also marked the single greatest loss of life by the U.S. intelligence community. 34 U.S. servicemen were killed and 173 were wounded in that attack. In addition, Israel is often found to be engaged in espionage within the United States. Should America turn a blind eye to such activities? Of course not.

Beyond that, Hebrew Christians are still pretty much regarded as second-class citizens in Israel. There is no freedom of religion for Christians in Israel. I have spoken at the only two Baptist churches in Israel (at that time): the First Bible Baptist Church in Jerusalem and the Bible Baptist Church in Bethlehem. The vast majority of the churches' members were Palestinian or Arab; they were not Jewish. Most of the opposition to Christianity in Israel comes from Jews not Arabs.

Evangelical Christians in the United States also need to seriously consider the impact of America's actions upon the Christian missionaries throughout the world, but especially in the Middle Eastern world. There are numerous Christian missionaries throughout the Muslim states. Ask any of them and they will tell you that America's meddlesome foreign policy makes their job harder--not easier.

What I am saying is that Ron Paul's position on Israel is not problematic for Israel's future security or prosperity. And neither is it problematic for America's future security and prosperity. In fact, Ron Paul's foreign policy is compatible with both historic American principles--not to mention constitutional government--and with deeply regarded Christian principles. The real problem is that many evangelical Christians have themselves lost their appreciation and understanding of these principles.

I took my just-turned-seven son out for coffee (yes, he loves the stuff) Saturday night so we could have a chat. I asked him how I was doing as a dad. I suppose I should be used to my son surprising me by now, but he still shocks me. His answer was that he didn't know. I asked what he meant. He said that he followed me, and he only knew what I taught him. So he didn't have anything to measure me by other than what I said. But he thought that if what I had been telling him that a father was supposed be was true, then I was doing a good job. He very much wants everything to be Biblical.

So then he threw me for another loop. I asked him if there were anything about me he would change, if he could. He responded that I was not the one that needed changing, he was. And he needed God to change him so that he would be more obedient.

I have been granted an awesome stewardship with this child, and I am constantly reminded to approach it with fear and trembling.

Mike Sunnucks of the Phoenix Business Journal reported Friday:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul won a straw poll this week held by an Arizona group representing young GOP entrepreneurs and business professionals.

The Republican Professionals Association conducted the poll this week.

Paul won the poll, with 80 percent of the vote, followed by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, with 12 percent. There were 515 votes cast, according to RPA.

McCain picked up the endorsement of the Tampa Tribune on Friday. He also has received a number of newspaper endorsements on the GOP side of the 2008 White House race.

Paul opposes the war and most government spending. He wants to dismantle the Internal Revenue Service and what he calls America's 'empire' abroad, including military bases and reducing foreign aid.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has assembled lists of links on all the candidates. There are links to news articles, YouTube, think tanks, etc. Go be informed!

Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
Ron Paul
Fred Thompson

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards

By now you probably know about the smear article published by The New Republic to time with New Hampshire voting. This article trumped up quotations from a newsletter that named Dr. Paul but was neither written nor edited by him. Although this was very old, second-hand nonsense, Dr. Paul released a statement on the article here. Anyone can read Dr. Paul's position on racism here.

While I do believe this propaganda hurt Dr. Paul in New Hampshire, I think the exit polls reveal another problem working against him: ignorance. Not so much that people are ignorant of what Dr. Paul believes or of his consistent record, although I am sure there are still many ignorant of those, but ignorant as to what the Bible says about the civil government.

Among those who attend church more than weekly, Dr. Paul only got 5% of the vote. Huckabee got 34%. Among those who consider themselves "born again" or evangelical, the vote was split between Huckabee and McCain at 28% each. Dr. Paul received only 3%.

There's a word that gets thrown around a lot out there and it is perceived as a very bad word: Theocracy. It comes up quite often in interviews with Huckabee and he is quick to defend himself against it. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a theocracy as "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority." The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined it as "government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed." It comes from the Greek theokratia: theos "god" + -kratia "strength, power." Daniel 2:21 says,

"And He changes the times and the seasons;
He removes kings and raises up kings;
He gives wisdom to the wise
And knowledge to those who have understanding."

God is sovereign. He does rule the nations. This world is a theocracy whether acknowledged or not.

But here is something very important that is not being acknowledged either: those who attack the concept of a theocracy want a theocracy. No, I do not mean that deep down they really want God to rule their lives. Quite the contrary. But they do want a religion to run their lives and they want it to run your life, too. As I pointed out before, humanism is a religion. (Don't take my word for it, read the post and see the humanists themselves call it religion).

All of that boils down to the distinction I've raised again and again. There are two options in life: theism or humanism. Either God is sovereign, or man is sovereign. Either we listen to God's Word or we listen to man's words.

But what has God said about civil government? The first thing, and what I've just said, is that God is in charge. He removes kings and raises up kings. All authority is delegated from Him.

Many of you will recognize the words of Deuteronomy 6, especially the homeschoolers:

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

What are these words? That points back to chapter 5, which is the Ten Commandments. But note especially the prefatory reason given to obeying the Ten Commandments:

I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Deuteronomy 5:6

Why were they to keep the Ten Commandments? Because He was the Lord who delivered them. His salvation demanded their obedience. This is crucial to the Biblical concept and limitation of civil government. I will be coming back to this.

God gave man four governments: church, State, family, and self-government. Romans 13:1-7 tells us that the civil government rules as a minister of God. These ministers will either rule according to God's law or their own. When Israel demanded a king, Samuel warned them what would happen:

This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

1 Samuel 8:11-18

Notice that the king would take a tenth, a tithe. Our "conservative" Republicans have gone far beyond even what Samuel warned of a king.

Psalm 119:45 says, "I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts." Those who walk in the rule of God are at liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). But when men follow after the commands of men, their liberties are stripped away from them.

Exodus 18 shows us a Godly government: Moses appointed judges, not to rule over the people, but as a means of appeal for the people. When a dispute arose, the people could go to a Godly judge. If the dispute was too difficult for the judge, he sent it to the next higher authority. It was an appeals court. But each individual was self-governed. The Law was to be read every seven years so the people would remember how to govern themselves (Deuteronomy 31:9-13). (We would do well to remind ourselves of our Constitution every four years before we vote!)

Christ gave the same system of government for handling disputes within the Church in Matthew 18.

Exodus 18:21 says how these judges are selected: "Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens." So God granted the authority to the ruled to choose their own rulers.

This system is the basis for our constitutional republic.

The Law of God is the basis for government. Man is arbitrary, God's Law is absolute. Consistent "natural law" tells us that the fittest should survive: a mother should have the right to kill her defenseless unborn child. That's just one example of why we must follow God's Law, not man's.

Now, back to that earlier principle of salvation demanding obedience. God has delegated authority to His four spheres of government.

As I quoted above, in Deuteronomy 6, God gave the authority to educate children to the parents. When the government usurps that authority, they are opposing God's authority.

Paul told Timothy, "Honor widows who are really widows. But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day." (1 Timothy 5:3-5) God gave the authority to care for widows first to their families. If they are really widows, they do not have a family to care for them, then He has given the authority to care for them to the Church. When the government usurps that authority, they are opposing God's authority.

God gives the authority to feed and clothe to the families and the Church. The welfare system and Social Security are means for the State to feed and clothe and establish reliance on the State. The State, in essence, says, "I will protect you. I will provide for you. I will deliver you. I will save you." All they need is a little more power, more authority, more taxes to do it. The State has positioned itself as God.

While all the candidates pay lip service to the Constitution, only Ron Paul has twenty years of consistent submission to the limitations of the Constitution. Only Ron Paul wants to turn the State back to a truly limited government. Check his record.

Look at the National Taxpayers Union's Fiscal "Snapshot" of the candidates here.

The Club for Growth has published white papers on each candidate's economic record:
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson

In an article in the Tallahassee Democrat, Michael D. Tanner wrote:

The difference in the two camps is as clear as the difference between Ronald Reagan's saying, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," and George W. Bush's saying, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move."

Bush's brand of big-government conservatism brought us No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and a 23-percent increase in domestic discretionary spending. It may well have cost Republicans control of Congress. After all, on election night 2006, 55 percent of voters said that they thought the Republican Party was the party of big government.

Most of the current Republican candidates fall squarely into the big-government camp. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney imposed a Hillary Clinton-style health plan in his state and not only supports No Child Left Behind but calls for the federal government to buy a laptop computer for every child born in America. He thinks we should increase farm price supports.

John McCain has an admirable record as a fiscal conservative, but he shows a disturbing predilection for making a federal issue of every personal pet peeve from steroids in baseball to airplane service quality. He embraces heavily regulatory environmental policies that hurt businesses and cost jobs, such as expanding the Clean Water and Clean Air acts and implementing the Kyoto Protocols, and compulsory national service. More important, he is also the principal author of a campaign finance bill that severely restricts political speech.

Rudy Giuliani's record on civil liberties suggests he views the Constitution as an afterthought.

Fred Thompson talks a good game, but his record suggests he is closer to McCain-lite.

Mike Huckabee may be an even bigger spender than President Bush, and he never met a tax increase he didn't like.

Thus, when Ron Paul talks about returning to limited constitutional government, a great many Republican primary voters sit up and take notice. For voters hungering for a return to the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan rather than the party of George W. Bush, Paul's rhetoric is a breath of fresh air.

In all fairness, this article was entitled, "Ron Paul: He Won't Win the Presidency, But..."

Let me remind you of this, though. In March of 1980, Gerald Ford called Ronald Reagan "unelectable." I may be prejudiced, but I think my wife handled the "unelectable" question rather well.

Dr. Ron Paul will be on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno tonight.

I'm watching the debate, and decided between the debates to check what Facebook is doing, since they are part of this. Here's the result of one poll at 9:00 PM:


The "Soundboard" is updating real time and every comment is "Ron Paul has a lot to say." "Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth." Etc.

In Eastern Iowa, Dr. Paul got 14% of the vote, which put him solidly in
3rd place there. Eastern Iowa has the college town of Iowa City, so he
got the youth vote. The problem with Iowa was the internet. Iowa is
rural and barely registers as a source in internet searches. Huckabee's
support was massively in the rural areas.

The most significant internet searches for Dr. Paul are coming from
Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Tennessee, and
Massachusetts. Big states.

Eastern Iowa is also closest in demographics to New Hampshire.

Dr. Paul was also the big favorite with independent voters - and they
are a significant number in New Hampshire.

The big news on CNN, of course, is that he beat "frontrunner" Rudy by a
landslide. And neither of them really concentrated on Iowa. Also, CNN is
(delightedly) capitalizing on Fox News' excluding Dr. Paul in the
debate, which is bringing more awareness to Dr. Paul.

After the primary, Dr. Paul told supporters in Des Moines, "This is not
the end. This is the beginning. I am more encouraged than ever before."

He is favored to win at least 3rd in New Hampshire, which will be a big
boost to the campaign overall.

As to the Fox News debate, this was a very bad move. Dr. Paul's
supporters are holding rallies, writing letters to editors, boycotting
all the sponsors, and calling Fox News. Supporters have already shut
down the phones at the New Hampshire GOP HQ, which has had to ask people
to please call Fox News, they had had nothing to do with it. Perhaps
most painful of all, they are calling shareholders asking them to sell
their stocks.

There's evidence that the stock is already taking a hit.

If you would like to see Dr. Paul in a debate, please tune in Saturday night from 7 to 11 (EST) on ABC for the New Hampshire Debates.

As far as we have the knowledge of God in us, and the favour of God towards us, our light is come. And if God's glory is seen upon us to our honour, we ought, not only with our lips, but in our lives, to return its praise. We meet with nothing in the history of the Jews which can be deemed a fulfilment of the prophecy in this chapter; we must conclude it relates principally to future events. It predicts the purity and enlargement of the church. The conversion of souls is here described. They fly to Christ, to the church, to the word and ordinances, as doves to their own home; thither they fly for refuge and shelter, thither they fly for rest. What a pleasant sight to see poor souls hastening to Christ!

Matthew Henry